Who Was Baha’u’llah, and How Can We Evaluate His Claims?

[Trailblazer]

No, when I said 'types' I meant the epistemological types. I directed you to the following sites
Epistemology: How do you know that you know what you know? - Farnam Street
Evidence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What are those types of evidence?

I do not buy what the one article says:

There is no definite way to confirm that we know anything at all. Only from our direct experience can we claim any knowledge about the world.

I do not believe our direct experience is knowledge.

 

[samtonga43]

Not even close. Jesus wrote nothing. Nobody who wrote 'about Jesus' knew Jesus personally.

How do we know so much about Julius Caesar?

Caesar was an accomplished author and historian as well as a statesman; much of his life is known from his own accounts of his military campaigns. Other contemporary sources include the letters and speeches of Cicero and the historical writings of Sallust.
Julius Caesar - Wikipedia

Who wrote about George Washington?

Jared Sparks' The Writings of George Washington was published in eleven volumes between 1833 and 1837.
George Washington's Papers

The value of this evidence is that it is both early and detailed. The first Christian writings to talk about Jesus are the epistles of St Paul, and scholars agree that the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’s death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died. These all appeared within the lifetimes of numerous eyewitnesses, and provide descriptions that comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine. It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place – under the aegis of the Roman empire – where there was strong suspicion of Judaism.

What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?

 

[samtonga43]

What are those types of evidence?

I do not buy what the one article says:

There is no definite way to confirm that we know anything at all. Only from our direct experience can we claim any knowledge about the world.

I do not believe our direct experience is knowledge.

So you experience the pain of childbirth, but you don't know that you are giving birth to a child?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you experience the pain of childbirth, but you don't know that you are giving birth to a child?

Experience is not relevant when it comes to religious knowledge because it is highly subjective.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place – under the aegis of the Roman empire – where there was strong suspicion of Judaism.

What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?

I do not doubt that Jesus lived and died, and that His teachings are generally what we find in the New Testament, I just doubt 'some' of the stories that were written in the New Testament and I doubt that Jesus actually uttered the words that are in the verses since that would be logically impossible.

It is also difficult to imagine why Baha'i writers would invent stories about Baha'u'llah such as we can read about in The Dawn-Breakers and God Passes By -- in Persia, under the aegis of the Islamic rule – where there was strong suspicion of anything that would depart from Islam.

 

[Ella S.]

I could never have said, “I know that God does not exist”. Can you say this, Elsa?

Yes, I am justified in claiming knowledge, because I am justified in believing that it is true that God does not exist. Since knowledge is a justified true belief, then I can also justifiably claim knowledge.

Is certainty different from knowledge?

Yes. Certainty is merely one way of achieving knowledge, but knowledge can also be gained deductively.

Apples and oranges.

Not really. The belief that the universe was created is actually very comparable to the belief that the world only began to exist Last Thursday. They're both baseless claims about the origin of the observable world that contradict what we observe.

 

[samtonga43]

A Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian and Jew are sitting together discussing religion. Each one explains how his religion is uniquely true while the others are false. Instead of leading to friendship and agreement, it causes tension and disunity.

Baha’is are saying that they are all right, true and correct. That Christ, Buddha, Muhammad, Zoroaster and Moses all are Great Spiritual Educators to help us lead happier lives and live in harmony.

So you agree that

“… in him (Jesus) the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”. Colossians 2:9

?

 

[samtonga43]

I do not doubt that Jesus lived and died, and that His teachings are generally what we find in the New Testament, I just doubt 'some' of the stories that were written in the New Testament and I doubt that Jesus actually uttered the words that are in the verses since that would be logically impossible.

What words?
Which verses?
And why would it be logically impossible for Him to have said those words?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you agree that

“… in him (Jesus) the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”. Colossians 2:9

?

How can God God dwell in Jesus if Jesus is the image of God?

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

If Jesus is the image of God then Jesus reflects God, as Baha'is believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

What words?
Which verses?

That is all a matter of opinion and since I am far from a Bible scholar I really cannot say.
I am sure that Bible scholars hold various opinions.

How many words are attributed to Jesus in the Bible?

Naturally, the selection of words attributed to Jesus is reflected in the needs of those collecting the documents." Since 1985 the scholars have been poring over the 1,500 sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. Their findings were compiled in a 1993 book, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say?Jan 22, 1994

Scholars: The Gospel truth is, Jesus' words not precise - Tampa Bay Times

And why would it be logically impossible for Him to have said those words?

It would be logically impossible because (a) the NT writers never knew Jesus, and (b) even if they had known Jesus, they couldn't have memorized what Jesus said word for word only to write it down decades later. Nobody has that good of a memory.

 

[CG Didymus]

No, I have learned more than ‘a bit’. (I used what we call in U.K. an ‘understatement’)

What does an open mind look like? Isn’t our mind, when we investigate a subject we know nothing about, ready to accept that which makes sense and reject that which does not? This is how I approached the subject of Bahaism.

And I must repeat that it is my informed opinion that it is extremely unlikely that MrB Is a messenger of God.

How do people evaluate the claims of anybody saying that they were sent by God to deliver a new message to all the people of the world? How open minded would anybody be? And, I would think, that most would be very skeptical about his claims. And for those that do keep a fairly open mind to evaluating Baha'u'llah, how long before they read something he said that gets a person to doubt his claims?

Then there are those that have accepted his claims and believe he is a manifestation of God. How many of those people had an open mind about the other religions? I would think that a lot of them had issues with the practices and beliefs of the other religions. And they went into an "open minded" examination of the Baha'i Faith hoping to find something different and better. And, for them, they did. But maybe their mind was too open to the ideas, beliefs and claims of their new religion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How do people evaluate the claims of anybody saying that they were sent by God to deliver a new message to all the people of the world?

Not many apparently.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

How do people evaluate the claims of anybody saying that they were sent by God to deliver a new message to all the people of the world? How open minded would anybody be? And, I would think, that most would be very skeptical about his claims. And for those that do keep a fairly open mind to evaluating Baha'u'llah, how long before they read something he said that gets a person to doubt his claims?

Then there are those that have accepted his claims and believe he is a manifestation of God. How many of those people had an open mind about the other religions? I would think that a lot of them had issues with the practices and beliefs of the other religions. And they went into an "open minded" examination of the Baha'i Faith hoping to find something different and better. And, for them, they did. But maybe their mind was too open to the ideas, beliefs and claims of their new religion.

What do you consider to be an open mind? If I'm absolutely convinced that you're wrong, yet ready to hear and consider your arguments for your position, do I not have and open mind?

 

[CG Didymus]

Not many apparently.

Regards Tony

Hey Tony, good to hear from you once in a while.

 

[CG Didymus]

What do you consider to be an open mind? If I'm absolutely convinced that you're wrong, yet ready to hear and consider your arguments for your position, do I not have and open mind?

That open enough. How many people fall for some fraud that claims he's a prophet and God spoke with him? I was spiritual gullible in my younger days. I was way too open minded and too trustworthy that religious people knew what they were talking about. I still listen to some of them. But with a very suspicious mind. Like here with the Baha'is. The claim is that The Christ has come. And he came over 150 years ago. Well, if the world is supposed to be better when Christ comes, and actually Revelation says he destroys all the evil people and rulers, and that there will be wars and rumors of wars but that is not yet the end, then I've got to be suspicion about this person's claims of being the return of Christ.

But they've heard those questions before. And they have answers that explains why those didn't happen as written. And it's not that bad of an answer... It's "The Bible isn't literal. It's symbolic." Yeah, okay. I'm still listening. But I definitely don't have an open mind. I think a skeptical mind and demanding more answers and better answers is a much better way for me. And what's funny, is I trust those people that don't just blindly follow a new religion, but those people that demand proof and evidence for the claims that new religion is making. To me, that's a much wiser way to be.

 

[rational experiences]

When a man of human as a human is a man it is by human father's own history. Sexually conceived you all once any self today was just a baby without an opinion.

Wants to argue. You use organisation not natural family status to argue.

Irrational argument chosen is by human behaviour.

Family is first.

Father was the eternal being first man. Eternal being came into the atmosphere changed its body into direct bio human into forced conditions to the body mainly water.

So he vibrated his body lower but kept separateness to water. Proving created creation historic had been released from the exact same place life came from.

We came into creation only because of the atmosphere. Refilled emptied out space. Spirit body already pre owned.

Water oxygenated water is as the main percent of our body. Yet we move through space. We aren't fixed.

Notice a human living inside an atmosphere says consciously I move through space. As gas not a solid owns more space.

Theorising.

A heavens by mass is fixed.

Water owned mineral dusts in the water already.

Ask just a spiritual baby man consciousness why did you become a theist with wisdom to destroy convert,? Theist thinker and adult human baby man.

As father never did as theism for humans God science.

The answer my brain was burnt my mind identifications changed about mass. As a human the only position a man. Thoughts are he him his. Status I thought.

Reason. I'm a human. I don't understand science. I look at the ground and see it exact.

You brother don't.

If you say dust I don't say human. You do. I see the dust as various dusts of dusts.

So as you proclaim but I am innocent of evil and reasoned why. It's about star falls return to earth. To protest see I was innocent it's not my fault I idolise my own self.

Theist thinker scientist wisdom of destruction gained direct to mind human by cosmos. A teaching only.

As in family and not organisation we are equal. Self idolising isn't equal.

Yet your teaching said I was innocent of the inherited human effect. Is Ignored. Is the teaching itself.

Challenge an organised human belief. Who placate their being upon someone else's life experience. Who ask who would I be if I don't use their information.

How about just an equal human naturally spiritual family member.

What about natural mother and father. As a theist you are never their life body or presence. You don't theory on their behalf.

Instead you take advice as a procedure to be special. Who was the history brothers I'm more especial than family.

I enslaved murdered family made them build civilisation as spiritual meek family. Who wouldn't harm anyone and were not brain burnt.

Phenomena. Two same humans in one place. One sees it..the other doesn't. You own your own mind. You own your own body. It's exactly advised.

Since my brain changed I saw temples cities etched as idols in mountains. As I watch movies. Saw human faces on Rock face etched.. Human bodies.

So I understood when our brother was star mind burnt he copied building. As it was aleady etched in rock as cities of God.

Precisely advised by the human only biological witness.

I was taught by personal experience.

I don't self idolise.

I know religious organisation was kept rich to own human positions to argue rich men human science destroyers who as just humans theoried gods change.

Don't stars hit earth and blow up forests?

The Muslim history to a Baha'i...I reverence a fallen rock. Is science of man's history.

Church built not founded 0AD. But many years after constant brain burn from falling asteroid parts as comets. Caused them to.

1000 year Satan star was known to be returning to earth as a mass. From 0AD.

As holy stars wandered past earth. And holy stars put cold metal dusts sucked into our atmosphere from the sun history star. Space model life safe cold star sun mass only taught as exact.

Men taught a wandering star saved life. Known. As natural light needs fuel to keep burning without destroying gas heavens.

Unlike Satan stars burning.

The teaching. Legal. No man is God the testimonial verdict by human witnessed life sacrificed.

Jesus the heavenly womb vacuum event has saved life from skin flaying. What fallout does if you want the experience just to learn again. Science is Satanism only.

 

[CG Didymus]

So why do you question loverofhumanity's belief that Baha’u’llah teaches Bahais to revere the Holy Bible?

It's sad, but I think the more honest belief for a Baha'i to hold about the Bible is that it is a collection of myths. They don't believe in creation, the flood, the parting of the seas, the sun stopping in the sky... in the NT, to be an honest Baha'i, they shouldn't believe in the healings and that Jesus walked on water. They don't believe in Satan and they don't believe Jesus physically rose from the dead. All of these things, for a Baha'i, should be seen as being symbolic.

So, what is there to "revere" about a book of fiction? For a Baha'i, when it comes to the Bible, what is real about God and Jesus? Did Jesus pay a sin debt owed to God because of the sin of Adam? Did Jesus conquer Satan and death when he was resurrected? No, not if he only rose "symbolically". What it comes down to, Baha'is are allowed to believe in the Bible any way they want to... as long as it doesn't contradict or interfere with their belief in Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It's sad, but I think the more honest belief for a Baha'i to hold about the Bible is that it is a collection of myths. They don't believe in creation, the flood, the parting of the seas, the sun stopping in the sky... in the NT, to be an honest Baha'i, they shouldn't believe in the healings and that Jesus walked on water. They don't believe in Satan and they don't believe Jesus physically rose from the dead. All of these things, for a Baha'i, should be seen as being symbolic.

So, what is there to "revere" about a book of fiction? For a Baha'i, when it comes to the Bible, what is real about God and Jesus? Did Jesus pay a sin debt owed to God because of the sin of Adam? Did Jesus conquer Satan and death when he was resurrected? No, not if he only rose "symbolically". What it comes down to, Baha'is are allowed to believe in the Bible any way they want to... as long as it doesn't contradict or interfere with their belief in Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith.

Christ stated that He spoke metaphorically not the Baha’is. It’s this symbolical language which has divided Christians until now Baha’u’llah (the Father) has come and explains these things in plain language. So the same would go for the Old Testament also.

John 16:25

These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's sad, but I think the more honest belief for a Baha'i to hold about the Bible is that it is a collection of myths. They don't believe in creation, the flood, the parting of the seas, the sun stopping in the sky... in the NT, to be an honest Baha'i, they shouldn't believe in the healings and that Jesus walked on water. They don't believe in Satan and they don't believe Jesus physically rose from the dead. All of these things, for a Baha'i, should be seen as being symbolic.

So, what is there to "revere" about a book of fiction? For a Baha'i, when it comes to the Bible, what is real about God and Jesus? Did Jesus pay a sin debt owed to God because of the sin of Adam? Did Jesus conquer Satan and death when he was resurrected? No, not if he only rose "symbolically". What it comes down to, Baha'is are allowed to believe in the Bible any way they want to... as long as it doesn't contradict or interfere with their belief in Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith.

As I Baha'i I embrace wholeheartedly what Abdul'baha has offered, as it is what Baha'u'llah offered.

Inscription in the Old Bible Written by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in Persian

"THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God."

‘Abdu’l-Bahá Abbás.

Ya Baha'ul Abha to that CG.

Regards Tony

 

[Muffled]

I believe he is a religious philosopher. He is easy to evaluate as being in contradiction to the Bible.